"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.
Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!
In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General,
and
all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK